September 15, 2008

Out-Takes: Behind The Atlantic's McCain Cover [Bumped]

[ UPDATE: Monday - Video: Atlantic editor James Bennet takes a turn in the Fox barrel saying, in essence, "Who knew?." Magazine and article author are just "victims." Atlantic to apologize to McCain, suspend payment to Greenberg, contemplating lawsuit. Details at bottom of post. Scroll down.]

"Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.” - Jill Greenberg

The Atlantic Monthly's current cover by Beverly Hills photographer Jill Greenberg looks like this:


Not really Annie Leibovitz quality, but not even Annie's delivering that these days. ["One sees such portaits, and what can one say but...”Salieri."]

As far as it goes it is workmanlike enough and presents McCain, unlike the Obama covers we are used to seeing, without the halo. Given the level to which the owner and the staff of the Atlantic are in the tank for Obama -- the owner's wife, Katherine Brittain Bradley, is on record in one instance for $28,500.00 to committees supporting Barack Obama-- even the cover-lines are not half-bad if a bit half-hearted. I'd only remark that it is no accident that the Atlantic's editor approved the upper red slash bar with the words "Porn" and "Adultery" in it. Editors, especially those whose paycheck depends on displaying their bias for their boss, love those little gotcha games. I know. I played them too.

But that's not where the Atlantic cover story stops.

It's a question, you see, of the disposition of all the McCain "out-takes" from this shoot. Out-takes are images taken of a subject at a photo shoot that are not used for publication by the client commissioning them. Typically, when you hire a photographer for a shoot -- and I have hired dozens over the years -- the photographer delivers all the film or digital images taken to the editor and art director for their review and selection. In a professional shoot these can easily be dozens if not hundreds of images.

[Greenberg NSFW, children and other living things now on continued page]

But there seems to have been a "leakage" of some images between Jill Greenberg and her clients at the Atlantic. How intentional this is, how much the staff of The Atlantic colluded or did not collude with Ms Greenberg I have no way of knowing just yet. But at this moment Ms. Greenberg is displaying on her website (Hit refresh to cause the page to cycle) the following images which can only be based on out takes from the Senator McCain / Atlantic Monthly photo session [UPDATEWas it something I said? Greenberg has now removed the images below from rotation on her home page. The images below were there as of midnight, PST, Sept 14. The images are, as of now still visible via manipulator > enter > names > john mccain. UPDATE to Update: Those images are back at's home page. Look like Greenberg decided to double down and brazen it out.]

jillgreenberg3.jpg jillgreenbeerg1.jpg

jmccaincntgreenberg.jpg mccainenhanced.jpg
[Click images to enlarge]

IMAGE UPDATE: Here's one I missed to add to this "portfolio" of a degraded person. This one just about sums it what Jill Greenberg's soul is all about:


These images are, to any reasonably decent person, simply political pornography. There's just no other way to parse them.

To say Ms. Greenberg's use of this material in this way is "unprofessional" and does the subject (John McCain) and the client (The Atlantic Monthly) a disservice is to vastly understate the case. Not only has Ms. Greenberg exposed The Atlantic to charges of bias it may well have not intended, it turns out she was engaged in dealing with Senator McCain falsely as well. She has, indeed, bragged about it to PDNPulse, a professional photographers' journal. Here, in her own words, are what she did:

When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.....

After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”

What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds - PDNPulse: How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain

So what we see here is a candidate for President showing up at a photo-session for a cover shot for a magazine he knows is not going to give him an Obama-pass, but still making time for it. Waiting for him is the contracted representative of that magazine, Jill Greenberg, who has literally set a trap for him and then lures him into it. She mocks the McCain staff for not being "very sophisticated" about lighting when, in truth, the lighting used for a professional photo session is very complicated. There are umbrella lights, fill spots, and a raft of others being used at any given time.

I imagine that Ms. Greenberg was in full charm mode with Senator McCain at the same time she was executing her little partisan plot. Indeed, I am certain she was nothing other than sweetness and light to him. What she was doing was quite another thing, a vile thing. Simply put, it was betrayal for a cheap political frisson for her.

Then Greenberg extended the betrayal to her Client, The Atlantic. She either did not deliver all the images of the shoot to the client or she began to manipulate them for her own uses as seen above. In this digital age, she probably ftp'd the images to The Atlantic, kept the originals on her own system, and then made the cheap and disgusting photoshops seen above.

I'm not sure how the art director of The Atlantic, Jason Treat, feels about this, even though I have written him requesting a reply. Still, during the years that I hired and worked with illustrative photographers, product photographers, news photographers, and fashion photographers in London and New York City, my art directors and myself always got all the film to review. Depending on the contract, the film would or would not go back to the photographer. When digital came it, it was always understood that the out-takes or images we commissioned and paid for would be kept confidential by the photographer -- as specified in the rights agreement. At the very least, we would have exclusive use of them for a considerable period of time.

One thing I do know is that if I, or any other editor or art director, ever caught a photographer using images held back for secondary profit outside of the contract, or using images in a way that would undercut our publication, we would pull that photographer's card out of the assignment rolodex. Not only that we would make it out business to tell other editors and art directors at other publications that such a photographer was never to be trusted again.

Ms. Greenberg may well have her opinions and is welcome to them. But to use the offices, reputation, and money of The Atlantic Monthly to fool and ridicule a United States Senator and candidate for President goes well beyond unprofessional conduct and into the area of fraud.

Elsewhere in the PDN article, Ms. Greenberg giggles, "I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president.” Again we see the thin slime that passes for courage and conviction among those of Ms. Greenberg's ilk -- "I'dlike to be edgy and transgressive, I just don't want there to be any consequences for me."

Relax, Ms. Greenberg, and munch your tofu or carpet in complete security. There is no lamp post in your future. Should McCain be elected I am positive he won't take the time or use his power to audit Ms. Greenberg. That, as well as the dishonorable Ms. Greenberg herself, are things too far beneath Senator McCain for him to even notice.

But perhaps, if Ms. Greenberg's fraud were to become widely known in the advertising and publishing communities, it could well be the case that Ms. Greenberg has a lot less income to audit in the coming years.

You may recall that last week US Weekly played fast and loose with a Sarah Palin cover and it ended up costing that magazine around 10,000 subscribers as the cancellations flowed in. The Atlantic starts with a much smaller subscriber base than US Weekly and an almost non-existent news stand sale. May both shrink accordingly and increase the $5 million per year loss it is currently running. In addition, it might be a good thing if advertisers and media buyers were alerted to this episode. I'm going to do my share.

You see, I no longer write to editors about these frauds and outrages, I write to the advertisers. You should too.

Beverly Hills photographer Jill Greenberg's Current Client List. Proud to be associated with her?

UPDATE 2: The editor of The Atlantic weighs in:

"We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. "We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture."

But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way.

"We feel totally blind-sided," he said. "Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional." - New York Post

UPDATE 3: Jeffery Goldberg, author of The Atlantic's McCain story has this to say: About that McCain Photo

"I don't know Greenberg (I count this as a blessing) and I can add nothing to what James Bennet told the Post except to say that Greenberg is quite obviously an indecent person who should not be working in magazine journalism. Every so often, journalists become deranged at the sight of certain candidates, and lose their bearings. Why, this has even happened in the case of John McCain once or twice. What I find truly astonishing is the blithe way in which she has tried to hurt this magazine."

UPDATE 4: Via email from the Atlantic's PR agency, I have just received the following statement by Atlantic editor James Bennet regarding this episode:

“We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.

When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics--instead, we assess their professional track records. Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected Jill Greenberg, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally.

Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images she has created for her Web site of John McCain.”

It has been my experience that if you have to get PR to push out statements on a Sunday, you know you are in trouble. Developing...

UPDATE 5: Atlantic Monthly Editor to Offer Apology to McCain for Photog’s Doctored Pics

Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.... “She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we’re taking steps. So we’re looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,” Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is “already drafting a letter of apology” to McCain.

“I mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us … but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,” he said.

James Bennet, editor of the Atlantic, turns in a required appearance on Fox to underscore that The Atlantic did not know what it was getting when it hired Jill Greenberg. What he says makes a certain amount of sense, but not complete sense.

I'm not buying the Bennet line that The Atlantic did not know what they were getting. Bennet may not have know about Greenberg's history. (Note that he is careful to use "I" throughout), but the art director must have known. The Greenberg "Crying Babies" story was news throughout the sphere, the media, the television, and the magazines. It reached international levels. The art director of the Atlantic, James Treat, certainly knew about Greenberg. He also knew, from the mere fact of working within The Atlantic, and most likely from editorial meetings with Bennet and the author, what the tone of the cover story was and what sort of image was likely to be approved.

This is common in magazines -- art directors being told how to slant an image -- and art directors listen carefully in order to assign a person most likely to win the editor's approval. If they don't come up with such an image they risk having to do the job over with much less time.

When it comes to covers, art directors are utterly under the control of the editorial and, especially, the publishing arms of the magazine. An interior illustration may be "owned by the art director, but the cover is owned by the business arm of the magazine first and foremost.

HT: Ace and Newsbusters

Welcome Lizard Overlords and Instaposse! Here's something else you might enjoy: Monsters from the Id: Good-bye to All That's Democrat @ AMERICAN DIGEST

Posted by Vanderleun at September 15, 2008 7:18 PM | TrackBack
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Cynical contempt for traditional morals + ruthless passion for utopian ideals = Leftist

Posted by: Gagdad Bob at September 13, 2008 8:38 PM

But will it all matter once they lose the election? And it just seemed in the bag, too.

Posted by: Stephen B at September 13, 2008 9:23 PM

Wow! When I first saw those photographs in your post I figured you must be writing some kind of satire about the Atlantic cover, and that those photos were a sly joke (mocking not McCain but the liberal media portrayal of him), but it just didn't sound like a satire... So I clicked the link to the photographer's website... wow. I'm speechless. This is the photographer chosen by the Atlantic to take the cover photograph of McCain. Every time I think I'm beyond surprise re MSM propaganda, numbed to it, I'm jolted and disgusted again.

Still, it says something that I first thought this was a joke *in McCain's favor*. E.g. like that New Yorker Obama cover, supposedly mocking the right wing's portrayal of Obama. (Titled, if I remember correctly "The Politics of Fear.") That was ironic to me, because what they ended up portraying was not so much a comment on right wing caricature, but demonstrated the liberal caricaturing of any criticism of Obama. But in this case, there it is, beyond parody: those outtakes represent the liberal portrait of McCain. I can't imagine anything that nasty done to an image of Obama (the always be-haloed Obama) without raising howls of moral outrage. Not to mention the huge breach of trust it represents, violating an ethical if not legal contract between publication/photographer and the subject volunteering to be photographed. But then, of course, Greenberg is an *artiste*.

So finally, I'm less outraged and more amused. Like the over-the-top characterizations of Palin, this says much more about the portrayer than the portrayed. Still, the fact that this photographer specifically was chosen by the Atlantic to do the McCain cover... well, it sickens me, but also only further entrenches how I feel about the MSM and this election in general.

Posted by: andrea at September 13, 2008 9:38 PM

One small observation I'd like to make: The image chosen by the Atlantic for their cover, while not flattering, in fact certainly not making him look "pretty" in any modern day metrosexual sensitive-new-age-guy kind of way, is actually more appealing to me than a more "attractive" image of him might be. His face is stamped with many of those proud scars you mentioned this past week, and in my mind they kindle a certain degree of respect, knowing that they come from bitter experience.

That said, this woman is a heinous and vile caricature of professionalism, and I hope the photographic trap she set guarantees that she'll be unhirable in the future. I'll be submitting my opinion, and may both the Atlantic and Jill Greenberg reap what they have sown.

Posted by: Julie at September 13, 2008 11:37 PM

I'd hold off on "punishing" The Atlantic for this; it's clearly irresponsible and shows poor judgement, but I don't think we can say they were malicious with any degree of certainty.

That said, Jill Greenberg deserves a change of career. Even putting aside her betrayal of trust to her subject and her employer, this kind of viciousness is morally reprehensible. Pretty vile.

Posted by: gabriel at September 13, 2008 11:57 PM

Fuck McBush and his dog Bitch.
American hell, you're traitors and should be hung from the nearest tree.

Posted by: Joseph, Mr. Joseph to you at September 14, 2008 1:30 AM

Heck, those are actually some pretty cool looking images. Far as I can tell, she didn't violate any contract by taking the extra photos, and frankly, looking at her portfolio, I think she'll have enough work to cover the rest of her career, even if she doesn't get to shoot any more Republicans.

As for her level of viciousness, well, McCain DID say Obama was trying to teach kindergartners about sex when he was supporting a bill to teach about stranger danger. I don't think he or his supporters have the moral high ground here.

Posted by: sjohntucson at September 14, 2008 3:10 AM

Hey, btw, Mr. "I am aware of all Internet Traditions," I notice that you have THIS pic up on this very site:

How on Earth do you even dare criticize Greenberg for copying your own schtick?

Disgusting, is what you are.

Posted by: sjohntucson at September 14, 2008 3:32 AM

Wow. Just vile. And some folks leaving comments, too. The "warmonger" fauxto was what I was expecting in the Sarah Palin hate mail I received from a liberal friend. Except Sarah would be standing over the body of Bambi with his still-beating heart in her hand after having taken a bite out of it.

We canceled our subscription to the Atlantic at least a year ago and they keep sending it! So I got to see this pornographic cover up close. This is what liberalism is doing to our country. As Klavan said, without higher purpose, it is all pornography. Blech!

Posted by: Jen at September 14, 2008 5:41 AM

She's obviously severely emotionally disturbed and lacks the basic ability to govern herself.

Posted by: Lucy Dashwood at September 14, 2008 6:05 AM


Oh come on! the Obambi lipstick pic is cute, not malicious. By your acute sense of proportion I suspect you must be a democrat.

Posted by: Hunt Johnsen at September 14, 2008 6:16 AM

This is the most appalling political dirty trick I've ever seen. Whether the Atlantic was in on it or not is irrelevant. The magazine's reputation will be tarnished for many years to come.

Posted by: Jonathan at September 14, 2008 7:51 AM

I think we need to track down the sponsors of this manipulative deceptive ad and ask them if they are proud to be associating with someone who doctors their images in such an unprofessional way.
See the ad and the article deconstructing their Betrayal of Trust and disrespect to the American people.
and then take the same action you believe ms Greenberg deserves immediately
thank you

Posted by: Bryan Bliss at September 14, 2008 8:04 AM

Funny that this leftist fauxtographer makes her living pimping images for those huge corporations leftists so despise.
And they accuse us of hypocrisy!

Posted by: teresa at September 14, 2008 8:17 AM

Jill Greenberg's career is on a bridge to nowhere. As for "Atlantic" ... xref: Titanic

Posted by: Deborah at September 14, 2008 9:17 AM

"In politics, The Atlantic Monthly will be the organ of no party or clique, but will honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea. It will deal frankly with persons and with parties, endeavoring always to keep in view that moral element which transcends all persons and parties, and which alone makes the basis of a true and lasting prosperity. It will not rank itself with any sect of anties: but with that body of men which is in favor of Freedom, National Progress, and Honor, whether public or private."

...The Declaration of Purpose of the founders of The Atlantic Monthly, as published in their first issue, 1857. If the first sentence sounds familiar, it's because Andrew Sullivan quotes it on the masthead of his blog. Heh. The irony.

Posted by: Rich Fader at September 14, 2008 9:36 AM

From the photo The Atlantic used, it seems the fraud was worked on both Sen. McCain and The Atlantic. They hired a contractor and the contractor seems to have abused the relationship.

Very unprofessional behavior, methinks.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 14, 2008 9:39 AM

Thinking a little bit more, I wonder what the terms of the contract regarding ownership of the images actually is, and what the extent that the photographer can make of them?

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 14, 2008 9:41 AM

A nice way to thank the Atlantic is take their business reply (postage paid) subscription postcard out of the magazine, tape it to a brick, and send it back to the magazine with whatever comment you would like to make in the "name" and "address" lines. This works great with all kinds of left wing magazines.

Posted by: halfacarafe at September 14, 2008 9:56 AM

Anheuser-Busch one of her clients? Hmm...

Gerald, maybe you should pass a note to Cindy McCain. I'm sure she can do a little something behind close doors...

Posted by: newton at September 14, 2008 9:57 AM

It appears that Ms. Greenberg has some misgivings about her unethical and unprofessional behavior after all. The photos that popped up earlier have now disappeared from her website.

Posted by: RWR at September 14, 2008 9:57 AM

Here, re-read this again Julie & gabriel & sjohntuscon & any other leftwing nutjob moonbat- the Atlantic was full well in on it- they KNOW who they hire- shutup traitors.******
Given the level to which the owner and the staff of the Atlantic are in the tank for Obama -- the owner's wife, Katherine Brittain Bradley, is on record in one instance for $28,500.00 to committees supporting Barack Obama-- even the cover-lines are not half-bad if a bit half-hearted. I'd only remark that it is no accident that the Atlantic's editor approved the upper red slash bar with the words "Porn" and "Adultery" in it. Editors, especially those whose paycheck depends on displaying their bias for their boss, love those little gotcha games.

Posted by: Legion at September 14, 2008 10:16 AM

I am a creative director at an ad agency in NYC and I've lost track of the number of left-wing celebrities and artistes who I have shot down for a project because something in their portfolio/reel annoyed me, because they've made some kind of dim-witted public utterance about politics that pissed me off or because an actor or actress showed up to a casting session with an obnoxious shirt. These people are effin' infants who want to enjoy the benefits of commerce and freedom in this country but pretend they're above it and sneer at the values the rest of us hold. Someone should take a dump on this chick's head.

Posted by: John at September 14, 2008 10:22 AM

Even the cover shot was ridiculous. You never light a portrait with a rear light from both sides. Secondly, the contrast in the face was increased in Photoshop to highlight skin lines. Contrast this shot with the Time cover of Madeline Albright where all the wrinkles were toned waaaay down.
This is simply photographic malpractice.

Posted by: robin4est at September 14, 2008 10:42 AM

No wonder you're so steamed - these shots just crap all over your treaured "talent" at kidding yourself. Boo bloody hoo.

Neocons getting emo over Photoshops? Wow, major reality-perception issues much, folks?

Try finding some REAL & graphic civilain casualty shots from that War On An Adjective you're so bloody fond of - THAT pointless & disgusting gore-orgy is worthy of REAL anger & loathing. Just say hypocrisy.

The "political pornography" spiel is a mite rich coming from a guy who once made his living doing those nasty pervy Penthouse Letters, isn't it, Mister Internet-Traditions-Know-It-All?

I hear you physically threatened this lady, too. Congratulations - you're officially pathetic ... try it on with the wrong person & you're going to be eating your Cheetos through a tube. Not a threat: just a helpful hint, which I'm sure you'll either mock or twist into hate-speech - & y'know, when I picture the end result of that ignorance, that kind of makes me a very happy camper.

The image of a hypocritical bully getting what they deserve ... now THAT is a shot I'd pay for.

Posted by: jim at September 14, 2008 10:51 AM

Jill Greenberg? Isn't this the same clueless broad who goads and teases babies until they cry so she can photograph their tears of frustration in the name of "art?" Anyone who hires such witless twit gets what they deserve.

Posted by: Tell Sackett at September 14, 2008 10:53 AM

Now it seems her collection displayed on the homepage to be John NcCain amongst crying babies.

Posted by: Mike at September 14, 2008 10:54 AM

It's the newest rage! LOL pun intended.

The newest game in town is called Political Limbo!
How low can you go?
Democrats win handily!
May it be the only contest they win for years!

Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out.

Posted by: Judy at September 14, 2008 11:00 AM

This isn't new, this kind of hit-photography against Republicans. It's quite common. Though this is an egregious breach of business ethics. But check out what TIME magazine did to Gingrich in 1995, when he was Man of the Year. The shot him with flat-on, direct light, to make his eyes red and expose every pore and bit of stubble on his face, and behind him they put a nausea-yellow and green fog.,16641,19951225,00.html

Posted by: David at September 14, 2008 11:25 AM

Jim, I can't very well threaten you when I don't have your address or even your last name. I highly doubt, however, that you'd be able to make me eat Cheetos through a tube.

Posted by: Jim at September 14, 2008 12:24 PM

I vaguely remember back when The Atlantic was a magazine, not a work release program for the mentally ill.

That faint whirring sound is Michael Kelly spinning at 8500 rpm.

Posted by: David Burge at September 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Funny thing is, in the age of Photoshop, images like this lose a lot of their power. 20 years ago, this would have been much more striking, because there was no practical way to create images like this without real photos.

When I scanned this page, I assumed it's just another Photoshop artist going off on John McCain. Big deal. Been there-seen that.

Nevertheless, the breach of trust this represents is stunning. If there were any justice, Greenberg would never shoot another magazine portrait.

She's made life worse for the rest of us photographers. Trust has been damaged here. Selfish, self-righteous ***hole.

Posted by: WilliamP at September 14, 2008 12:28 PM

I will write to all aforementioned employers of the photographer urging them to reconsider their contract with her. Motivation: unprofessional behavior.

Posted by: DN at September 14, 2008 12:30 PM

Any who has spent any time behind a lens knows that this is nothing more then a photographic hit piece. What a turd this photog is but I am sure a hero among her peers.

Take Jim for example. Obnoxious, look down their nose, holier then thou libtard from away.

Hey Jimmy why don't ya bitch about the French oil companies pretending not to notice when Saddam was filling trenches with Iraqi civilians as they sucked oil out the ground.

Silly little Wanker.

"The image of a hypocritical bully getting what they deserve ... now THAT is a shot I'd pay for."

Say cheese Jimmy!

I will bill ya later.

Posted by: mikkins at September 14, 2008 12:37 PM

How unspeakably vile these people are.

I hope they lose subscribers just like US Magazine did.

Posted by: Maureen at September 14, 2008 12:40 PM

How unspeakably vile these people are.

I hope they lose subscribers just like US Magazine did.

Posted by: Maureen at September 14, 2008 12:40 PM

They knew when they hired her that she'd supply unflattering photos.

None of the pictures in her portfolio make anyone attractive, her style accentuates facial lines and harshness.

The breathtaking unprofessionalism may have surprised the Atlantic though.

She's probably correctly assuming that it will help her career. Too bad.

Posted by: Perry at September 14, 2008 12:43 PM

Gee, for being so clever, Ms. Greenberg sure can't spell.

"Warmongerer"? Not just dumb -- stupid as well.

Posted by: CaptainVictory at September 14, 2008 12:53 PM

TO: All
RE: The 'Atlantic'

"These images are, to any reasonably decent person, simply political pornography. There's just no other way to parse them.

To say Ms. Greenberg's use of this material in this way is "unprofessional" and does the subject (John McCain) and the client (The Atlantic Monthly) a disservice is to vastly understate the case. Not only has Ms. Greenberg exposed The Atlantic to charges of bias it may well have not intended, it turns out she was engaged in dealing with Senator McCain falsely as well. She has, indeed, bragged about it to PDNPulse, a professional photographers' journal." -- Whomever wrote this, as their name doesn't seem to appear here....

I'm not surprised about this disclosure of The Atlantic. Indeed, not too long ago I had a similar experience with them, albeit of the verbal/textual form.

The Atlantic is not a news-organ. It's strictly a propaganda piece that doesn't abide by any sense of decency. In my considered opinion it is not even fit to line the bottom of bird cages. Rather, it is a total waste of natural resources and if the Greens had any sense of personal integrity, they'd burn IT, instead of animal research facilities.



Posted by: Chuck Pelto at September 14, 2008 1:01 PM

These photographs are about the photographer -- they have nothing to do with John McCain. The subject was just a prop for an exploration of the bias exhibited by many in the media. This strong attachment and public display of preference flies in the face of any pretension of fairness or honest debate.

Do they really think this kind of action is going to help Obama get elected? Every time something like this comes out, McCain picks up another 1%. Keep it up and Obama will lose by a landslide.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 14, 2008 1:11 PM

I don't know why you'd think this would hurt sales of the Atlantic. Given their entire readership is in the tank for Obama, they probably would have preferred the photoshopped stuff. US Weekly is a much more mainstream audience.

Posted by: JeremyR at September 14, 2008 1:29 PM

I remember her. She's the %^&*$ that made the babies cry, just for her "art".

She should be tarred and feathered.

Posted by: Obi's Sister at September 14, 2008 1:46 PM

How old is Greenberg? 12?

Posted by: Steven Brockerman at September 14, 2008 1:46 PM

Those folks who pointed out the absolute juvenility of these supposed "professional" adults hit the nail on the head.

30 years ago, no-one outside the Bolshevik left wd have tried some low stunt like this, even if they could get away with it. It's like one of those retards in a fast-food joint spitting into the food before serving it--how can you do it and look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

Jill Goldberg needs a good, old-fashioned NYC-style mugging--"Hey lady, that's a nice camera you got..."

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at September 14, 2008 1:58 PM

What do you call it when you jump the shark, make a lap, jump the shark, make another lap, jump the shark a third time, make a lap....?

Posted by: Yanni.Znaio at September 14, 2008 2:12 PM

Well, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Wackaloon, thy name is DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: TmjUtah at September 14, 2008 2:37 PM

I think Jill Greenberg needs therapy to learn how to control her hatred. When a so-called professional behaves in such a manner it shows a major weakness in her character & an embarrassment to her profession. I can't imagine too many are currently soliciting her business.

Posted by: Marie at September 14, 2008 2:37 PM

Who cares what a lefty retard does to give orgasms to other lefty retards.

Posted by: Diggs at September 14, 2008 2:38 PM

gabriel said: "I'd hold off on "punishing" The Atlantic for this; it's clearly irresponsible and shows poor judgement, but I don't think we can say they were malicious with any degree of certainty."

That might be true, but it's not really the problem. This photographer has shown herself to be untrustworthy. Taken along with the vile gossip concerning Sarah Palin that Andrew Sullivan felt comfortable posting on the Atlantic's blog page, it is reasonable to conclude that the kind of people who work for the Atlantic are not the kind of people who can be relied upon to use common sense, or to be objective, or to truthfully report information or facts. If the employees can't be trusted, how can the magazine be trusted?

It appears to me that within the media itself, trust might be going down the drain. The worldview of the individual members of the fourth estate could be beginning to poison not only the media's relationship with the public, but its relationship with itself.

At any rate, I have called & canceled my subscription to the Atlantic, and I told them why.

Posted by: punditius at September 14, 2008 2:57 PM

The McCain images have returned to Greenberg's intro page. Interesting.

Posted by: RWR at September 14, 2008 2:59 PM

I wonder if Jill Greenberg realizes this is the one thing she'll be remembered for for the rest of her life. Its probably dawning on her now.

Posted by: catalog of fauxtography at September 14, 2008 3:00 PM

These should be pictures of Charlie Gibson.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 14, 2008 3:21 PM

Isn't there a fraud case here somewhere? Jill Greeenberg as an indivdual or as an agent of the Atlantic had a person pose under false pretenses as to how the resulting images were to be used.

Posted by: Steve Anderson at September 14, 2008 3:23 PM

Whenever a story like this breaks, it makes wonder what people of this ilk got away with BEFORE the internet.

Another excellent job, Gerard.

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at September 14, 2008 3:39 PM

Soon, I think Jill will be doing food shots. For a long, long time.

She can use her "sophisticated" lighting skills there.

Posted by: Chris B at September 14, 2008 3:55 PM

From an early comment:

'...and it just seemed in the bag."

Of course, that's the best part!

Posted by: Born Free at September 14, 2008 4:12 PM

I think that was wrong, but hey can she do some of Sarah Palin.
I do feel like McCain was cheated but all fair in love n politics just like the untruthful ads he ran

Posted by: Jon at September 14, 2008 4:17 PM

Ah, I see the cowardly Jill has thought better of taking down her little dung drawings and has put them back into rotation on her website (the better to wallow in the media attention she, no doubt, feels is her due, brave truth-teller to power that she is). Oh, but look, she has her bastardized photos of McCain interspersed with photos of crying babies and a bellowing polar bear now.

Get it? CRYBABIES! People who think she was out of bounds and unprofessional - including her editors at the Atlantic, one would assume - are great big CRYBABIES!!! She will not be silenced!

Whew, is that Jill clever or what? And subtle, too! Don't forget the plight of the fluffy/cuddly polar bear, as well, the last of its kind soon to be hung on Sarah Palin's office wall.

Wow, thank goodness for Jill. Now what I've seen a chimp taking a shit on a war hero's head, I may just have to rethink my voting plans and perhaps examine my soul, while I'm at it.

Or not.

Posted by: cest la vie at September 14, 2008 4:24 PM

I did not know there was a MDS McCain Derangement Syndrome!
I had heard that the SDS Sarah Derangement Syndrome had hit last week!

Some people are just a bit more susceptible. They are usually a pretty weak sorts.

Posted by: moniqueO at September 14, 2008 4:48 PM

To the leftists on this comment section defending Greenberg, essentially saying McCain is evil, and deserves the propagandizing...

What else is/has the media been telling you over the last 30 years, via slanted reporting, and bias by ommission, reinforcing the "Republicans are evil" narrative?

Posted by: Jay T at September 14, 2008 5:15 PM

That sharktooth photoshop with McCain licking his blood-soaked lips as blood dribbles onto his shirt collar -- that one is so deranged, rightwingers like me could actually use it as a weapon against the media. "Hey folks, want to know just HOW deranged the media are? Check out what one of their own sees when she looks at John McCain!"

I mean, this crap is actually so over-the-top vile that it just turns people off completely, and I don't mean that it turns people away from McCain. So in a way I'm actually happy about this.

Keep it up, Jill. Hey, why not photoshop Sarah Palin's head onto hardcore pornographic pictures and put them onto your website? I'm sure that won't make people want to boycott any and every company that hires you. Heh heh heh.

Posted by: Aitch748 at September 14, 2008 5:17 PM

Personally, I like the pictures. They have a lot of truth in them and no one can deny that McCain has issues with his wives. He is scary.

Posted by: john mc. at September 14, 2008 5:33 PM

She is a disgrace to photographers everywhere. Also, she fails at Photoshop.

Posted by: Mary at September 14, 2008 5:40 PM

The photographer needs to be locked in a psychiatric ward immediately.

I believe this displays some very latent schizo tendencies.

Posted by: jlp at September 14, 2008 6:00 PM

Props to The Atlantic for stepping up after Greenberg started bragging about her bias, though.

Something tells me Greenberg is going to be losing some high-paying jobs in the future.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish at September 14, 2008 6:02 PM

McCain's eyes look white in many of the other photos Greenberg has posted. The one selected for the Atlantic cover looks like she airbrushed them to look red. Really, why would anyone be surprised that she would?

Posted by: Matt H. at September 14, 2008 6:08 PM

Very Goebbels-like in zeal and hatefulness. This is why Obama is going to lose. The image of what he is representing is being hijacked by left-wing ideologues. It's no wonder why Obama's message can't get out. The extreme nature of these is being discussed on a nightly basis and is driving the news cycles more than they should. It really distracts from the issues. What's sad is that these people do not even care they are killing Obama's opportunity to win. It also lumps him in with these people as all of them are strong supporters of his.

Posted by: Malcom Z at September 14, 2008 6:12 PM

Gerald, you've given thw staff of the Atlantic a very bad Sunday and the sure knowledge that tomorrow will be even worse.
You're a god.

Posted by: Jim in Virginia at September 14, 2008 6:17 PM

I don't know if it's because I'm Jewish, but I'm surprised nobody picked up on one of the images. The one which has him with some kind of zombie fangs with gore dripping, that stuff is straight out of the Nazi Der Sturmer. Consider the irony of the left that loves to call Republicans Nazis.

Posted by: Crusader at September 14, 2008 6:25 PM


What, exactly is Obama's message? (Answer without using "hope", "change", or "Bush", please).

Why shouldn't we lump Obama in with his nutty supporters? He only denies them when they go way, way over the top, and even then, the press or prominent bloggers have to make an issue of it first.

Posted by: lpdbw at September 14, 2008 6:28 PM

Jill Greenberg meet Julius Streicher. You'd be good friends.

Posted by: Crusader at September 14, 2008 6:34 PM

The Atlantic was just as betrayed as John McCain, if not more so because it is they that their subjects trust. By that trust was Greenberg trusted. And she stabbed them in the back laughing, making that trust worthless. Nor do I think they can be blamed for not considering Greenberg's politics, "an acknowledged proffessional can be trusted to act proffessionally, regardles of personal politics" isn't an unreasonable statement. I'd consider denying work based on personal politics unreasonable. But now it isn't. Greenberg can't have gotten where she is in her vocation without people learning this about her, her peers and employers must have been covering for her, with great success. That she could be passed off to The Atlantic with nary a red-flag means that her proffessional community must not find unproffessional behavior in the cause of the Left unreasonable at all, nor something that clients should be warned of.

It's time to dust off the blacklists, things have gotten out of hand again.

Posted by: jack at September 14, 2008 6:42 PM

Always loved American Digest.

So, I wonder what the reaction would have been had we turned this around? That is, if Obama was the subject of the photo manipulations...

Click on that image link and enjoy!

Posted by: Gussinator at September 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Ace is right. She is "unprofessional" now only because she has outed them.

The Atlantic is a joke, now. With that and Lady Sullivan, they should just as well close that thing.

Posted by: oy at September 14, 2008 7:10 PM

What the heck? The pictures are still up. Mebbe Jill feels she is being persecuted and is **bravely** standing up for her beliefs.

For the most part, her website advertise her studio as one that will photograph for you, Photoshop the pictures in a tasteless manner, and them publish them on the Web. They are so far over the top that you begin to wonder if there are McCain operatives within the Obama camp and amongst the media. Give us more.

Posted by: Will at September 14, 2008 7:16 PM

Even if Obama wins, and he probably will with such evil on his side, these media outlets must be destroyed. The "people" in them must be hunted and hounded unto death.

There will be NO JUSTICE in America so long as they live and thrive like this.

They must be exposed, and since they do not feel shame, forced out of their illegitimate livelihoods.

Posted by: Michael at September 14, 2008 7:33 PM

"There will be NO JUSTICE in America so long as they live and thrive like this."

Live? Yes. Thrive? Not so much. If you want them destroyed, just stay out of their way.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 14, 2008 7:40 PM

This women is sick and a terrible photographer.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
the Right is always wrong

and the Left is always right
and facts don’t matter at all

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
throw good money after bad

feed failing social programs
keep the poor people poor

Posted by: USpace at September 14, 2008 8:26 PM

I don't blame the Atlantic; they were blindsided. Andrew Sullivan is nuts and the magazine is obviously in the tank for Obama, but I think they picked the best of a bad bunch of pictures to illustrate the story and I don't think they should be judged any more harshly than they already are because of this crazy stunt by a photographer who obviously thinks the ends justify the means.

That said, I am e-mailing Greenburg's list of clients and telling them I will no longer buy their products until they blacklist her. My right as a consumer to ask that they don't support someone like her.

Posted by: JW at September 14, 2008 8:32 PM

Well, it's said one expresses a vision of themselves in their art. Clearly we can see this persons ugly vision and self hatred in these vile altered photographs.

While MoveOn and other Haters will revel in this and may offer her future employ, I doubt respectable organizations will choose to pay her what she passes off as art.

Vile and disgusting. Like I said... essentially her self portrait. Very sad. May she one day see the light.

Posted by: KM at September 14, 2008 8:35 PM

Every time I think the media bias can't get worse, it does.

I've been a loyal Atlantic subscriber for over a decade. It's decline since Michael Kelly's death has been a source of real sadness. Not only have they lurched to the left since 2004, they've become boring.

Or maybe I changed. But I think they used to actually give both sides a chance.

Robert Kaplan is about the only thing left reading there. If they don't do something about Sully and this photographer, maybe just buying his books is all I need.

Posted by: Count Grecula at September 14, 2008 9:09 PM

Ahem...Greenberg is C#nt.

Posted by: Schratboy at September 14, 2008 9:38 PM

And these people want us to trust them to run the country?!

Posted by: PJ at September 14, 2008 10:14 PM

Typical leftwing yellowbelly child!

Posted by: trax at September 14, 2008 10:58 PM

Anyway, thanks Jill for showing us that Obama Democrats can't be trusted to do a professional job.

And the photo they used is pretty bad too. I can do better than that. How much did they pay this amateur for such a poor photo?

Posted by: Hope at September 15, 2008 1:17 AM

I'm an european photographer... on the matter of trust between the mag, the subject and the photographer, Jill Greenberg really needs to read some stuff about ethics.

As for the left vs right arguments on here; it really looks very childish. So maybe those doctored pictures sank to the appropriate level.

Posted by: hive at September 15, 2008 1:27 AM

Remember, the Atlantic's idea of Truth is to foster the lie that Sarah Palin "carried" her daughter's baby.

The MSM is not to be trusted.

Posted by: Koblog at September 15, 2008 2:06 AM

One can only hope that people like Greenberg, having exposed their biases overriding their professional integrity, will find that there really are consequences to one's actions. She is vile and deserves whatever harm she has done to her own career.

Posted by: Timothy W. Fox at September 15, 2008 2:30 AM

Did she get permission from McCain to use his photos on web? And how about altering them?

Posted by: DN at September 15, 2008 4:37 AM

What's sad about this "photographer" is that she's not some silly young kid fresh out of school but a middle aged woman in her 40s with two kids. She apparetly missed the part where you grow up. Pathetic.

Posted by: Amfony at September 15, 2008 5:26 AM

Wonderful student of the Republican style of politics.

Oh- but you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Posted by: delfinajones at September 15, 2008 6:13 AM


Posted by: FFED at September 15, 2008 7:16 AM

I predict that if McCain/Palin win in November, that these photos will be packaged into an exhibition and paraded through galleries throughout blue-state America. After all, it's only art, right? How appalling.

Posted by: Phils57 at September 15, 2008 7:19 AM

My recent comment on PowerLine applies to Greenberg as well: The beauty of the liberal newswriters and commentators anent McCain, Palin, et al. is that they simply cannot help themselves. They will drool hatred and animosity, they will befoul themselves, they will make themselves into public spectacles of beady-eyed little creatures of malice and spite. And they will do all of this with serene confidence in the unquestionableness of their journalistic professionalism. When has abysmal self-ignorance ever been so gruesomely evident to others while remaining so impeccably invisible to oneself?

Posted by: Olustee at September 15, 2008 7:24 AM

A quick look at the previous covers shows some fairly flattering photos of Mr. Obama, Mr. and Mrs Clinton, and even Kim Jong Il. When compared to the unflattering and untouched close up on Mr. McCain's face, there can be no doubt of the intention of both the photographer and the editors and publishers who approved its appearance on the cover.

For previous Atlantic covers:

Posted by: John M. at September 15, 2008 7:50 AM

Standing Ovation to Jill!

You are brilliant and I applaud you. Don't stop. Don't quit. Use your voice all ways and always.

Posted by: Shutterbabe at September 15, 2008 7:51 AM

Gerard, you've always been a decent and fair man in my opinion, and you've continued to be in this article. Since we first met, lo those many Spirit of America years ago, you've always managed to balance your personal disgust and outrage with the business at hand. And you've done it again.

Greenberg should be so lucky to come up against you. Anyone else would have ripped her to shreds without attempting to enlighten her as to the meaning of professional ethics. You, sir, have patiently and kindly painted her a very explicit picture of the problem with her actions and a few mild digs aside, done so with eloquence.

Posted by: Da Goddess at September 15, 2008 8:10 AM

she has no credibility, why would anyone allow themselves to be photographed by this immature, unprofessional idiot? From these manipulated photos, I suggest she seek help with her neurotic impulses before she does harm to her daughter or husband or dog. For someone to have these kinds of photos inside and express them publicly, a cry for mental help from her I think.

Posted by: Rebeka at September 15, 2008 8:29 AM

I have, like many Americans, just have gotten so frustrated at what's being allowed under the guise of the 1st ammendment. This is no longer shocking. The tolerance of unprofessionalism, just plain bias, and all the while giving people like Jill Greenberg a pass. We as citizens must demand a change. The level of hatred in these sorts of issues has reached a level that has allowed anyone, who cares enough to look, to no longer be ignorant. The rule of law must begin to be enforced. Freedom of speech does not encourage such libelous behavior to exist. This nasty, immature, and inappropiate unprofessional behavior cannot be allowed to continue. We must demand resolve with as loud a voice as is necessary. Call advertisers, call your district's Rep. in D.C., and so on. The end of such must be demanded.
Thank you for AMERICAN DIGEST giving us a voice.
RMcD in Ga. 9/15/08

Posted by: Ricky McDermon at September 15, 2008 8:29 AM

Thank you for this post. It proved the final straw. After more than 20 years as a subscriber to The Atlantic, I canceled my subscription this morning, citing the disgusting behavior of Jill Greenburg as the reason. The Editor's reply is on my blog, DigitoSociety.

Posted by: Rob Kleine at September 15, 2008 8:50 AM

Come on. They're just pictures that some woman made and put on her website. This has nothing to do with the Atlantic Monthly or some left wing conspiracy. Surely you can see the irony that all this paranoia, bile and hate are on a website that has long sported a picture of Obama with lipstick photoshopped onto his mouth? Come on, people. Try to elevate this thing beyond a grade school level.

One inaccuracy in the above article is that professional photographers almost never turn in an entire shoot. To suggest that the Atlantic Monthly must have seen these pictures because they were part of the photoshoot is not remotely realistic. I've been a freelance magazine photographer for 11 years. It doesn't work that way. The photographer edits and turns in what they want the magazine to see. That's the norm.

This is not part of some vast, liberal conspiracy. This is one woman expressing her opinion with some pictures that she took. If you really think it's more than that, you need to broaden your horizons. Respectfully, RD

Posted by: RickDahms at September 15, 2008 8:54 AM

To the jim that posted on 9/14 at 10:51 AM:

Congratulations. You are the one person on this forum who should probably never post again...on any forum. Whatever valuable message, if any, you wished to convey to us was lost in your atrocious grammar and oblique references to only you know what. If you are an example of the braniacs who will be running this country should Obama, by chance, be elected, we are in trouble. Please go back to grammar school and (re)learn the English language before you bother us again with your drivel.

Posted by: Bob at September 15, 2008 8:56 AM

Just another representative example of what leftist life is like on the "Whining City on the Hill."

Posted by: JC Refuge at September 15, 2008 9:26 AM

Whine on, Repugs. You did far worse to Obama and then have the nerve to complain ?? Buncha wimps, I say.

Posted by: spiderbucket at September 15, 2008 9:27 AM

The muscular and threatening manly projection of select liberal posters here is photoshopped from their own imaginations. Not that the pencil-necked geek-sapien is not dangerous, but if he offered them to an actual man he would no longer be able to use a keyboard any more than John McCain can.

Posted by: james wilson at September 15, 2008 9:36 AM


Where's the stupidity limit? I've seen some stuff I consider pretty stupid over here ;)

Posted by: hive at September 15, 2008 9:59 AM

I'm using a long leash here. You should see some of the 40 odd comments of hate, spew, and bile that I've killed.

Posted by: vanderleun at September 15, 2008 10:11 AM

If Atlantic is truly appalled by this disgusting creatures work, all they need do is demand she take the doctored pics off her website as a copyright violation. Since Atlantic contracted her for the McCain cover - Atlantic OWNS the copyright to the pictures - not her.

It's also apparent that some of the posters here are as repugnant as this Greenburg creature.

Posted by: Bruce at September 15, 2008 10:13 AM

You coverage is pretty good until you get into the politics yourself. Of course, this "story" really has no relevance on the issues of this election. The reality of it is that one photographer out of millions photoshopped some pictures that some find distasteful. How much it can be turned into is a matter of how far each person wants to take it. Some will find this to be a real "issue" while others will see it for what it is and ignore it.

Posted by: scott at September 15, 2008 10:21 AM

The Atlantic Monthly does not own the copyright to the photos. Greenberg does. The Atlantic Monthly did not publish the photos on Greenberg's website. Greenberg did. The Atlantic Monthly published a very respectful, statesmanlike photo on it's cover. Whether you like the style or not, it seems unfair to blame the magazine for pictures that they didn't run. They are as much a victim, here, as McCain.

Posted by: RickDahms at September 15, 2008 10:40 AM

If the messiah was subjected to similar left-wing bile as experienced by Republicans, there would be rioting in the streets.

At the end of the day the photographer, to my eyes, didn't get the results she intended. Except for the sophomoric photoshops, McCain appears healthy, masculine, steely and robust; a man fit for the presidency. That perspective provides confidence to a much greater degree than the overwrought, soviet-esque images of BO looking intently over the heads of the unwashed masses for that Heinekin in the back of the Sub-Zero.

Posted by: iowavette at September 15, 2008 10:49 AM

Jill Greenberg's conduct is clearly unprofessional and juvenile but does it really help the conversation to malign entire groups of people ("Relax, Ms. Greenberg, and munch your tofu or carpet in complete security.") who may or may not be ideologically aligned with Ms. Greenberg herself? Maybe we all need to grow up just a little.

Posted by: brian at September 15, 2008 11:37 AM

I have to say, considering the Atlantic's statements and actions after the time I wrote my comment above, I was too hasty to condemn them so harshly. They've expressed outrage, will not be paying Greenberg, have written a letter of apology to McCain, and are apparently considering a lawsuit. Moreover, judging from the excerpts & analysis of the article itself posted at the Mudville Gazette, the article appears to be surprisingly even-handed and fair to McCain. (Whether or not those who hired Greenberg and commissioned the article intended it to be so, it is the article they accepted from the author and decided to print.)

And I have to agree that, despite all Greenberg's intentions and efforts, McCain's dignity, heroism, strength, grit, even wit comes through in the photo chosen for the cover. (Much better that than the airbrushed be-haloed sentimental blandness of so many Obama covers.)

So the Atlantic is not blameless for what happened, but they've acted well afterwards, I do believe they too were badly betrayed, and all our condemnation should be laid at the feet of of Greenberg--- a truly despicable character.

Posted by: andrea at September 15, 2008 12:00 PM

Pretty good art. I'd still fire her though. Breach of contract indeed.

Posted by: J-Lo at September 15, 2008 12:07 PM

These pictures are as reprehensible as those Fox News photoshops of the NY Times reporters. Both parties should be kicked into the gutter by the American populace.

Posted by: Evan at September 15, 2008 1:09 PM

Absolutely entertaining! I'm still smiling. Not to matter regarding all the innuendo surrounding Greenbergs deception (or accurate depiction?) of McCain's soul, I've 'read' the eye content of many other news pics of McCain, this dude is just one more evil drone. Wake the hell up, they ALL are!
Not to worry, we're (collectively) getting to that point when God is engaging to fuck up everybody's day... permanently!

Posted by: Archangel at September 15, 2008 1:35 PM


McP.O.W. should be flattered.

Posted by: Rightwingsnarkle at September 15, 2008 1:39 PM

Anyone with taste would agree that the photographer was way out of line and should never be hired again - by anyone. However, I do feel the need to point out the lack of outrage against some of the horrible depictions of Obama and his wife. The boundaries of good taste extend to the left AND the right.

Posted by: LiberalLeft at September 15, 2008 2:06 PM

""""""Fuck McBush and his dog Bitch.
American hell, you're traitors and should be hung from the nearest tree.

Posted by Joseph, Mr. Joseph to you at September 14, 2008 1:30 AM """""""

Sigh. The proper term for people is "should be hanged," NOT "should be hung."

Also, thank you for adding an exclamation point to our contention here that "your side" of the political equation is vile and disgusting.

Hey, dude (oops, excuse me, I meant Mr. Joseph), I hope I didn't use too many big words for you.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 15, 2008 2:52 PM

"""""""Even if Obama wins, and he probably will with such evil on his side, these media outlets must be destroyed. The "people" in them must be hunted and hounded unto death.

There will be NO JUSTICE in America so long as they live and thrive like this.

They must be exposed, and since they do not feel shame, forced out of their illegitimate livelihoods.

Posted by Michael at September 14, 2008 7:33 PM """"""

My man, I know you're angry, but that's way over the top. Seriously, why do you want to sound like the people you despise?

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 15, 2008 3:07 PM

This woman is sick. She needs psychological help. After McCain and Palin win this election, MAYBE the Democrats will see the light and separate themselves from lunatics like Greenberg. People such as her really need to form their own left wing party, because they have destroyed the Democrats.

Posted by: Kevin Hall at September 15, 2008 3:20 PM

Greenberg is exactly what is wrong with the Dem party today. The party has been completely over run by elitist liberals. Until the Dem party returns to it's roots, this vile filth will be front-and-center. And, America will keep rejecting them.

Posted by: Stacy at September 15, 2008 3:46 PM

On The Atlantic cover:

The photograph is very compelling. There is a life of stories in each line, each scar. And the mouth is closed, not discussing those events but only in the matter that the face reveals. If rendered in oil and on canvas it would command you to stop and think about the man portrayed, to wonder about the character revealed and your own in comparison.*

Ms. Greenberg is very good; a pity she could not reign in her adolescent nature.

*I once saw in teh Ringling Museum in Sarasota an exhibit on the art of the Gilded Age. There was a portrait of a woman, and she looked as any other wealthy person, but it just drew you, the look that was captured under the surface. The card stated that she was the eldest of her family, and she and her siblings had been orphaned and she kept them all together, despite being ill, and had taken them to Europe on a grand tour, despite having to spend most of her time strapped to a board due to a bad back.

The strength of character came out of that portrait, 'never complain, never explain'. I think that cover photo captures that type of character - so foreign to this day that the Obama Campaign can't help stepping on themselves with ads about e-mails. They truly do not understand what kind of man they are facing.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 15, 2008 4:07 PM

Mikey, thanks for that observation. It's what I was trying to get at on Saturday night, apparently unsuccessfully. The image is compelling in spite of how they are trying to portray him (a quick comparison of this one to their previous covers makes it pretty clear that even though they may have chosen the best of what Greenberg sent them, they weren't trying to make him look good). I've been leery of supporting him for a long time, but in recent weeks I'm starting to change my mind a bit. I certainly have much more respect for him now than I did, and so to me seeing the scars and the lines coming through (instead of being prettied-up and airbrushed down) tell a much different story than the (Porn! Adultery! War!) associations the Atlantic was hoping to create in the viewer's mind.

To me, neither Greenberg nor the Atlantic deserve any credit for that whatsoever. I stand by my earlier sentiment: may they reap what they have sown.

Posted by: Julie at September 15, 2008 5:29 PM

That's some pretty subtle propaganda there, with the monkey pooping on McCain's head.

Get a grip. Quit crying. Find something significant to write about, or just take the day off.

Posted by: rom666 at September 15, 2008 5:29 PM


Posted by: Mr. Big Deal at September 15, 2008 5:32 PM

Chill out freaks.
You wanna talk "vile filth"?
How about Hellfire missiles crashing into an Afghan wedding or a Pakistani village, destroying men, women and children?
Now that is some serious "insanity and hatred"
Get a life.

Posted by: Tosh at September 15, 2008 6:25 PM


If they tried to make Sen. McCain look pretty, they would erase what makes him seperate.

The Dorothea Lange photograph of the migrant mother, it is the same look. It is an Ansel Adams of the western landscape. It is a great photograph, no matter what the photographer wanted. The subject took control then, and honored the photographer by permitting that photograph.

Ms. Greenberg didn't realize that she touched greatness right then.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 15, 2008 6:50 PM

I just love this! ANOTHER lib rag about to begin it's death spiral! First the credibility goes, then the readership and subscriptions decline followed by dwindling circulation and the loss of advertisers. Finally, the dreaded pink slips appear and the employees become the latest unemployment statistic. Buh-Bye Atlantic Magazine! Thanks Jill! Good Job! Thanks to you and your lib friends, I see a McCain landslide (said he, rubbing his hands with glee)!

Posted by: Greg Casey at September 15, 2008 9:19 PM

"Hey Jimmy why don't ya bitch about the French oil companies pretending not to notice when Saddam was filling trenches with Iraqi civilians as they sucked oil out the ground."

Got a link for that.......

no, didn't think so, bullsh1t.... IOKIYR

Posted by: Alan Graman at September 15, 2008 9:57 PM

Short memories here. The hate that filled the airwaves, TVs, magazines, and newspapers against Bill Clinton didn't feel good to his supporters. How does it feel to you McCain backers now that it's reversed? Would anyone like to stop this nonsense? You can, if you choose to complain to whichever person/company/party is responsible and not just when its the "other guys."

While I'm at it, since the word ""lib" or "liberal" is used here so frequently as an insult, how does the word "fascist" sound when talking about conservatives or Republicans.? Seems fitting, if all I want to do is punch blindly into the ether. Greenburg is a product of the culture we've created. Only we can stop it from continuing.

Posted by: OldSchool at September 15, 2008 10:21 PM

I am not letting some silly images choose for me who I am going to vote. What Greenberg did was after the shoot on her own computer. The magazine got not control of any of that. Still hte cover shot shows McCain in a great light and he looks strong. the other images of old McC on her website are just her expressing her own opinion but the didnt give any of that to the magazine. The girl has balls!

YOu Reps rather see 600,000 dead innocent iraqis and one single abortion. Thou are Hollier than everybody else but kill kill folks from other nations that NEVER wanted to fight us.

Why is McCain ready now when 8 yrs ago he wasnt good enough vs Bush. Back then he was a looser even when he served in the Senate for 2 decades and fought in Nam and Bush who didnt have any experience and hide during Nam became the president. As we all know Bush became a failure and a war criminal.
Now you folks want McCain "the looser" to be our president. A man who is getting into his late 70's.
Would you work for someone that old? Yet you want someone that old to lead our nation?
Crazy crazy just the same way you folks elected war monger Bush and all his cronies. Nothing good has come out of the WH in 8 yrs. Lies after more lies to hide the other lies.
Chaos after chaos and our economic is as bad as ever been. The Euro is a lot stronger than our weak $ and we are paying so much in gas. When Bush took over the gallon of gas was like $1.40

McCain will follow in Bush steps and for sure I dont want another 100 yrs in Iraq. I dont want our children dying there for a war started based on lies by Bush and a place that had nothing to do with 911. But hey REps mommies and daddies your boy and girl will go there to die for nothing.

Sure Saddam was a badass but so is the leader of North Korea, China and so many other nations. Are we going to invade them? How if Europe or China decides to invade us one day too.
Palin as a president? says who? Is that easy to become the president of the USA? YESss if you can see Russia from your backyard!!


Posted by: James Trainor at September 15, 2008 11:03 PM

Nothing the lefties do would surprise me anymore. They're completely devoid of morals, intelligence, honesty, judgment or any sense of responsibility. For them any action, no matter how vile, is justified by their desired ends. For me, Democrat Party membership is tantamount to an open admission of extremely serious moral and ethical failings. I hold the lot of them in complete contempt and refuse to deal with them wherever possible.

I've cost some of them considerable sums that way and I fully intend to continue doing so. There is a price to be paid for their evil behavior and to the extent that I can do so in my own sphere and within the law, I make sure they pay it.

Posted by: mac at September 15, 2008 11:36 PM

"Nothing the lefties do would surprise me anymore. They're completely devoid of morals, intelligence, honesty, judgment or any sense of responsibility. For them any action, no matter how vile, is justified by their desired ends. For me, Democrat Party membership is tantamount to an open admission of extremely serious moral and ethical failings. I hold the lot of them in complete contempt and refuse to deal with them wherever possible."



Posted by: EQUILIBRIUM at September 15, 2008 11:50 PM

Gotta love it with all the McCain hate, YES ULTRA LEFT ( I won't slander the word Liberal since the left has no meaning what a true Liberal is. )

We know you want the Lord Obama to being back the wise economic policies of Jimmy Carter. Thank goodness a vast majority of the American Population who lived thru that era are still around. If people think its bad now LOL that just tells me that you are under 35 and had no idea what is what like in America during the Carter years. The ULTRA LEFT must think American's over all are idiot's. Do you really think America is going to want to see what it was like again in the late 70's?

Posted by: Ian at September 16, 2008 1:15 AM

I actually really like the cover photo of McCain. And, while I accept that very little media coverage is unbiased (right or left), what Greenberg did was way over the top. No doubt it will make her the darling of the extreme left but she will be radioactive to most of the respectable media. As she should be.

And what is up with people who post on the Internet? There is an insane amount of vitriol on both sides. Didn't any of you have mothers who taught you how to behave respectfully to each other? And don't tell me that the other guy did it first - I have kids and I hear it all the time. And don't tell me that this is the most important election ever and it's necessary to fling poo to win. It's hateful - pure and simple.

Posted by: ErinSiobhan at September 16, 2008 3:33 AM

Meanwhile, as you're all bristling with cheap outrage over a series of insulting photos, McCain's business buddies (Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm) have just destroyed the US banking system, and screwed up our financial system for years. And McCain wants to figure out who did this, yes he does!

Why, I'm so outraged at these photos I can't remember who was running the country for the last eight years! Damn those liberals!!

Posted by: Sacanagem at September 16, 2008 8:46 AM

Love her pictures! I think it not only brings out McCain's alter ego... but also his sinister eyes!!

Gonna spread them on the internet!


Posted by: USA_Infidel at September 16, 2008 1:05 PM

Face it, McCain got punked, and no amount of stamping y'all's pretty little feet is going to make these images disappear. Looks like to me that she captured McCain's soul. (Yes, the monkey thing is stupid, but how do we know that some wingnut didn't put that together, or even the worst of the above?)

Posted by: Audeamus at September 16, 2008 1:22 PM

How could the McCain campaign allow their candidate; their boss; our future, to be so compromised!

Look, I am a fervent McCain admirer and supporter but I also fervently admire and support the 1st amendment. So while, Jill Greenberg is vile, underhanded, unprofessional and unethical, I support her right to express her views no matter how vulgar the expression of those views may be.

And since I am not privy to the terms of her contract with the Atlantic, I can't comment on whether she has rights to use the photographs on her site nor whether she was in violation of the terms of her contract with Atlantic.

No doubt, by her own admission of premeditately "tricking" McCain, she acted in an unprofessional, underhanded and unethical manner. But where were the people who should be looking out for the candidate??

If Jill Greenberg's extreme anti-Republican views were so well known; if news of her demonstrated willingness to use extreme measures to express those views in such sensational ways is so widespread, why on earth would McCain's aides have let him be in the same room with her much less to be photographed by her!!

As the Fox anchor woman pointed out, it takes only a simple Google search to see that this is a dangerously unfriendly woman to Republicans. Didn't anybody do their homework???

It's one thing for McCain to agree to be interviewed by an unapolegetically left leaning publication. In fact, I find that a further demonstration of John McCain's courage and his demonstrated willingness to work with anybody, no matter what side of the aisle they are from. But it is entirely another matter to put yourself in the hands of someone who is willing to torment babies to make her point.

I can't believe that nobody in the McCain camp checked in to her before showing up at her studio. But worse, what if they did check her out and still showed up??? I can't believe they would agree to let Senator McCain be photographed by her. I'd have told Atlantic to hire another photographer or forget the cover story.

And while photographic lighting can be a complex matter, Ms. Greenberg may have a point about the McCain people being so unsophisticated. Don't they have PR experts as part of the campaign? Didn't one of those PR experts join them at the shoot to make sure the candidate was shot in a positive light (pun intended)???

I've been in Advertising for over 20 years in account management. I am not a "creative" and I am not a photographer or photography expert but I have been to and supervised many, many shoots. I have come to understand in broad terms how lighting effects a shot. But MORE importantly, I have come to learn not to trust what I watch/see with my eyes, but to only trust what the camera captures. Didn't anyone ask to see what she was shooting? Most photographers shoot digitally these days. Didn't anybody look at what was in the camera?

Yes, Jill Greenberg was underhanded -- perhaps even to the point of committing fraud and breach of contract (though we'll have to leave that to the lawyers to determine) -- but the McCain campaign blinked on this one. Somebody should lose their job over that.

As one last aside, I actually like the cover photograph. We all know John McCain is 72. That is a fact. But I don't think it shows him as old, rather I see a portrait of a strong, battle-hardened and determined man. The type of man I want in the White House.

Posted by: Fritz Peterson at September 16, 2008 1:57 PM

"It's one thing for McCain to agree to be interviewed by an unapolegetically (sic) left leaning publication. In fact, I find that a further demonstration of John McCain's courage and his demonstrated willingness to work with anybody, no matter what side of the aisle they are from. But it is entirely another matter to put yourself in the hands of someone who is willing to torment babies to make her point."

Oh bullshit.

Try this thought experiment on for size:

***A(ltered States)P(ress) - Media outrage overshadowed the closing days of the 2008 election cycle as John McCain's PR handlers refused access to journalists who either refused to fill out a questionnaire about their political preferences or were identified by the campaign as "hostile" to their candidate.***

Greenberg violated BASIC business principles before she did anything else. Her actions could do nothing but harm the interests of the client who HIRED her, and it's not up to the campaign to be "sophisticated" when responding to a request by one of the oldest political commentary publications in the country.

What did she expect, as she was setting up her ambush? That one of the staffers would look at the equipment and shout, "Watch out! She's going to photoshop a monkey shitting on McCain's head!"?

The subsequent photoshops and whining are just peeks into a demented mind. And a showcase of what mentality populates the bleeding, puss filled edge of the Left in this country.

Posted by: TmjUtah at September 17, 2008 8:43 AM

Your biased story on political bias really hit home. Thank you.

Posted by: Gaston Lagaffe at September 17, 2008 10:55 AM

You are most welcome. The pleasure is to serve.

Posted by: vanderleun at September 17, 2008 11:01 AM

Oh the outrage. Oh no someone photoshoped a Republican as evil. Big f#@king deal. Oh the outrage. Pleeeeease. If you're going to be upset at least pick something important. This is laughable, as is the Republican party at this time in History.

Posted by: Floridafish at September 17, 2008 11:19 PM

It's just a picture! It ain't sending young men and women abroad to fight a needless, endless war. It ain't ruining the economy. It ain't ignoring the fact that the planet's overheating. It ain't keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. It ain't weakening the dollar. It ain't underpaying teachers. It ain't denying anyone healthcare. It ain't keeping us dependent on foreign oil...
It's just a picture of a guy. A guy who can potentially do a lot more damage to this country than any photographer could ever do by not finishing a retouching job. Let's get some perspective.

Posted by: JP at September 19, 2008 12:56 AM

Ha ha ha, you did nicely! I enjoy photoshopping.

Try removal and replacement of the eyes once. It is awesome.

Nice work. No matter what the other people say!

Posted by: Robert at September 20, 2008 9:13 PM

Hey, thought you would like this! Jeff

Posted by: Alyssa at September 30, 2008 9:06 AM

It hurts when the pain comes from the other side doesn't it? She was just given all you Conservatives a little taste of what we have had to take from you for the last 8 years!

Posted by: Tim at October 2, 2008 12:17 PM

While I support her freedom of speech and expression, and I will probably vote for Obama, there was something really underhanded and creepy in lulling McCain into a false sense of security and then taking all these intentionally awful shots of him.

If she's so "edgy" and "transgressive", and she had something to say about McCain's politics, why didn't she say it to his face, especially since he was right there in the room with her?

Because she wanted to make a buck, and have her fun at his expense, too.

How admirable.

Posted by: at October 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Thanks for posting companies Jill Greenberg has worked for. I'm not going to write to them, I'm just going to boycott them. While both parties have stretched the truth, I checked many facts and have found the greatest perversion of truth comes from the Dems.

Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2008 9:37 PM

Tim's Oct 2nd post above is complete joke. Does he really think that the Democrat led congress w/ the 12% approval rating had no effect on America over the last few years?

Obama will probably win and our government will soon be led by Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reed. Then Barney Frank can further work his magic in rebuilding our economy without worries...right? It's amazing to not hear people question the fact that Obama ran a far left agenda to win the Dem nomination, and then pretend to be center to win the election. Using the polls as my indicator on this one, rhetoric is much stronger than substance when seducing the minds of the ignorant.

I know many companies who have already stopped buying equipment, established hiring freezes, and plan further layoffs in anticipation of Obama getting elected. These are definite effects the upcomming leftist government will have when they take office.'s already starting, and they are about to get much worse.

Posted by: Dave at October 14, 2008 10:02 PM

Nyc Psychic Readings with the Messenger will be an exciting aventure for all. Come and make an appointment with The Sisning Power in Nyc. 917-733-3107

Posted by: Nyc Psychic Readings at November 6, 2009 11:45 AM

You missed a few more .... full collection is available here:

Posted by: Norris at August 8, 2011 5:50 AM